A wise teacher once drilled into my head, "You have to meet people in their own language window." Sometimes, if I listen closely I discover I can translate their needs and desires into a language that matches my own. Some are more wedded to a form of expression, a lexicon, a choice of words that is distinctly Right-speak, but when I dig down to what is beneath the rhetoric, their fears and mine share more than is evident at first glance. Often we agree on the Ends, even if we don't agree on the Means to achieve those Ends. Still, coincident ends suggests the means can sometimes be negotiated.

I grew up down here, I speak the language, both literally and figuratively, very well.

My son in law's father was the local sheriff until he passed away a few years ago. Son in law is a good man and a good father but he was conservative to a fault. Now he would rather talk to my wife and I about things that are troubling him than to his own family, he finds a more sympathetic and understanding ear with us than with his born again Baptist family..

It is possible to change people but it takes a long time, a lot of patience and a good relationship in the first place. You have to lead by example, the example of always doing the right thing, especially when no one is watching.

Who is Grima Wormtongue?

In terms of power to lead liberals in the wrong direction, I'd pick Fred Hiatt.

I think your analysis is spot on.

In a desperate scramble to understand what I had just witnessed I somehow stumbled across Stan Goff on teh intertubez..

A twenty six year Army veteran, mostly in Special Forces, Stan has spent a lot of time thinking and writing about the American empire from the perspective of an enforcer of that empire, Stan's interviews and writings have affected my thinking considerably

His book _Full Spectrum Disorder, the Military in the New American Century_ is, to me anyway, a fascinating read.

http://tinyurl.com/2oo3h7

More by and about Stan:

http://www.insurgentamerican.net/people/stan-goff/

Tweety is now, has been and always will be a twit.

If you're not sure to whom I'm referring I suggest you put a photo of Chris Matthews side by side with one of Tweety Bird.

Separated at birth.

atheists are sure God doesn't exist and agnostics, while they may be pretty sure there's no good evidence or while they may think there's a possibility, refuse a final judgment on the question, because it's really impossible to make? This is an honest question.

Atheists lack a belief in God or gods.. That does not *necessarily* imply that the atheist is absolutely sure no god exists.

The hard atheist says, "There is no God".

The soft atheist says, "I do not believe in God".

The agnostic says, "I do not know if there is a God".

It is possible to be both agnostic and a soft atheist at the same time.

The hard atheist concludes there are no deities because there is no compelling evidence or reasoning to support a different conclusion, and because there is compelling evidence to the contrary.

That is true in a lot of cases but by no means all.

There are a lot of "contrarians" out there who believe as they do simply because "everyone else" believes the opposite.

Kucinich has demonstrated none of that, and hasn't even really tried.

And yet, when you inquire online about which candidate is the favorite of the activist Dems, Kucinich comes out on top.

Kucinich's positions come out on top with the real, liberal Democratic base. It is concerns over his "electability" which drive his polls lower than they really have any right to be.

And since no post of mine would be complete without a reference to the drug war.. I'll just point out that Edwards is not as anti establishment as all that, he is pro drug war.

Frankly I'm getting to the point where I hope Paul whips all their asses.. Just to see the reaction of the MSM..

But while Paul has generated a ton of donations, he still sits at about %4 in the polls.

And the majority of Americans would have no problem voting for a black man for president.... According to the polls..

As a late middle aged white man I know this to be utter bovineguano.

Pollsters are having a harder and harder time finding people willing to participate. I suspect there are also fewer and fewer people telling the truth on the polls.

"Sandbagging" is an old and time honored tradition.

Which isn't reasonable of them.

I never claimed it was, nor do I think so..

I don't know of any true contrarians of the sort you propose, except possibly among the religious who outright reject evidence and reason almost exclusively in favor of 'belief'.

In a population which is ~ 80% theist, being a theist is hardly a "contrarian" position.

If you have read _The Authoritarians_ by bob Altmeyer then you will know that there is roughly 25% of the public at large who simply are incapable of using logic to arrive at their conclusions.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

obama rails on special interests. do you need him to more explicitly address the issue of corporate influence on media?

Obama knows full well that if he too explicitly addresses the issue of corporate influence on the media he will earn the undying hostility of said media.